Your subject line suggests some sort of time differential needed to be pointed out. You then give the dates for two different launches, implicitly saying that the non-nasa launch was the first.

Well explain the "catch up" business then. What is your point with the original post? Why does it convince you that a university+company collaboration is going to be a more reliable way to space than nasa?

I'm not picking on you boy, not yet, so wipe your tears and go see yo momma.

A joint effort between NASA and Lockheed Martin has resulted in the development and successful initial testing of the first sub-scale cryogenic tank built of a composite material that is compatible with liquid oxygen.

The Kimbo-IV flight team successfully launched the Kimbo-IV vehicle on Saturday, 3 June 2000 at the Reaction Research Society's Mojave Test Area. To the best of our knowledge, this flight represented a technical milestone in the history of rocketry- it was the first time that a composite LOX tank has ever been flown.

the title reflects that they beat nasa in launching with an aerospike nossle (something nasa should have done years ago) and the "catch up" is on obtaining flight research data for aerospike nozzles (nasa naysayers have used not having aerospike flight data as an argument against aerospike development a long time - a tautology for sure...)

the data from the California State University/Garvey Spacecraft Corporation joint venture is already (at least) in the private domain (likely it's available on request from CSULB as well, although GSC might have the final say) while it's probable to assume nasa's data wont be until it's pretty much redundant (i.e. decades from now)

and Keith i do resent your condescending tone as well as your begging for flamewars, i'm telling you this so that you can change your act - apologies will be accepted if you have the decency to offer them earnestly

the title reflects that they beat nasa in launching with an aerospike nossle (something nasa should have done years ago)

No argument from me or nasa, so your title is just ballyhoo. The bit in parenthesis is merely your unexplained opinion. Just why should they have done this "years ago"?

n54 wrote:

and the "catch up" is on obtaining flight research data for aerospike nozzles (nasa naysayers have used not having aerospike flight data as an argument against aerospike development a long time - a tautology for sure...)

So they would have been better off by sitting on their hands and leaving aerospike nozzle data collection to the real experts. Good to know. Pity you didn't send them a memo earlier.

n54 wrote:

the data from the California State University/Garvey Spacecraft Corporation joint venture is already (at least) in the private domain (likely it's available on request from CSULB as well, although GSC might have the final say) while it's probable to assume nasa's data wont be until it's pretty much redundant (i.e. decades from now)

These are not arguments these are assumptions!

n54 wrote:

and Keith i do resent your condescending tone as well as your begging for flamewars, i'm telling you this so that you can change your act - apologies will be accepted if you have the decency to offer them earnestly

Well I am sorry. How was that? Actually I think the CSU/GSC thing is very cool (in fact its awesome) ... but it isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a "sure thing" ... and certainly not something I would put up against the behemoth nasa (who despite its flaws, has a bit of experience in carrying flight tests through to actual missions).

Now, two more things for this overlong post (sorry about that too) ...

1) I don't like flamewars much either, but I like poorly thought out pronouncements even less. I refuse to lay back quietly while someone spews half-assed crap where I can read it. It's a habit I suppose, in my job you have to read a lot of information, find the bullshit and then tear it to shreds where everyone else can see it. Niceties are for those who have earned each others respect. I don't know you and you don't know me, so for the time being I wont whine about you paddling my behind if you dont mind me kicking your arse, occasionally. Just remember, in a 100 years it'll all be dust anyway.

2) Will you finally answer those questions I asked you in another thread not too long ago? You remember, the one about "ArmadilloAlert".

the title reflects that they beat nasa in launching with an aerospike nossle (something nasa should have done years ago)

No argument from me or nasa, so your title is just ballyhoo. The bit in parenthesis is merely your unexplained opinion. Just why should they have done this "years ago"?

no the title is exactly what it says: "University-company cooperation beats nasa". for you we can add the words "in launching with an aerospike nossle" even though the links clearly show that the subject of the topic is aerospikes. the title is a fact not ballyhoo and you can check the links as well as contact the different parties if you think otherwise

as to my opinion that nasa should have launched aerospike rockets years ago it is based on aerospikes being a very promising technology for more efficient rockets/nossles - and it's not exactly new stuff: the theory on aerospikes has been known for at least 40 years (i'm not proposing nasa should have done it forty years ago though, in case you jump to that conclusion)

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

n54 wrote:

and the "catch up" is on obtaining flight research data for aerospike nozzles (nasa naysayers have used not having aerospike flight data as an argument against aerospike development a long time - a tautology for sure...)

So they would have been better off by sitting on their hands and leaving aerospike nozzle data collection to the real experts. Good to know. Pity you didn't send them a memo earlier.

i haven't said they would be better off sitting on their hands - quite the opposite: i said they should have used aerospikes a lot sooner (i'm glad nasa is finally launching with aerospikes, better late than never), this reply of yours just reveals your character

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

n54 wrote:

the data from the California State University/Garvey Spacecraft Corporation joint venture is already (at least) in the private domain (likely it's available on request from CSULB as well, although GSC might have the final say) while it's probable to assume nasa's data wont be until it's pretty much redundant (i.e. decades from now)

These are not arguments these are assumptions!

the part on nasa is an assumption, but unless you can show nasa having a good, extensive and long track record of releasing test data from experimental launches it's a solid one. as to the other data note the parantheses

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

I don't like flamewars much either, but I like poorly thought out pronouncements even less. I refuse to lay back quietly while someone spews half-assed crap where I can read it.

no comment necessary

as to your job... in your profile you've written "Molecular Biologist", would you like to revise it? or are you simply a troll?

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

2) Will you finally answer those questions I asked you in another thread not too long ago? You remember, the one about "ArmadilloAlert".

i'm sure your replies to this topic has already shown everybody else why and you should have the mental faculities to grasp it yourself as well. in case you're unfamiliar with the term trolling it exactly describes your current behaviour.

Actually, to hell with it ... we're doing just fine n54, don't let her put you off ... for everyone else, this is a superlong post ...

n54 wrote:

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

n54 wrote:

the title reflects that they beat nasa in launching with an aerospike nossle (something nasa should have done years ago)

No argument from me or nasa, so your title is just ballyhoo. The bit in parenthesis is merely your unexplained opinion. Just why should they have done this "years ago"?

no the title is exactly what it says: "University-company cooperation beats nasa". for you we can add the words "in launching with an aerospike nossle" even though the links clearly show that the subject of the topic is aerospikes. the title is a fact not ballyhoo and you can check the links as well as contact the different parties if you think otherwise

Awesome ... but no-one is arguing that point. Your original post suggests this is your main "thrust" ... that nasa reported something less than factual ... else why point it out? I don't think you hate nasa.

n54 wrote:

as to my opinion that nasa should have launched aerospike rockets years ago it is based on aerospikes being a very promising technology for more efficient rockets/nossles - and it's not exactly new stuff: the theory on aerospikes has been known for at least 40 years (i'm not proposing nasa should have done it forty years ago though, in case you jump to that conclusion)

There must have been a reason for them to not pursue it until now ... probably something to do with existing technology working fine enough for their purposes. No reason for you to beat them over the head for it.

n54 wrote:

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

n54 wrote:

and the "catch up" is on obtaining flight research data for aerospike nozzles (nasa naysayers have used not having aerospike flight data as an argument against aerospike development a long time - a tautology for sure...)

So they would have been better off by sitting on their hands and leaving aerospike nozzle data collection to the real experts. Good to know. Pity you didn't send them a memo earlier.

i haven't said they would be better off sitting on their hands - quite the opposite: i said they should have used aerospikes a lot sooner (i'm glad nasa is finally launching with aerospikes, better late than never), this reply of yours just reveals your character

Fair enough ... that is very true, it does reveal my character. As your posts reveal yours, as TerraMrs post reveals hers. So what? Am I of low character? If that is your point, make it clearer.

n54 wrote:

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

n54 wrote:

the data from the California State University/Garvey Spacecraft Corporation joint venture is already (at least) in the private domain (likely it's available on request from CSULB as well, although GSC might have the final say) while it's probable to assume nasa's data wont be until it's pretty much redundant (i.e. decades from now)

These are not arguments these are assumptions!

the part on nasa is an assumption, but unless you can show nasa having a good, extensive and long track record of releasing test data from experimental launches it's a solid one. as to the other data note the parantheses

Um ... what? Do you read scientific literature? I mean, do you read scientific literature at all?

n54 wrote:

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

I don't like flamewars much either, but I like poorly thought out pronouncements even less. I refuse to lay back quietly while someone spews half-assed crap where I can read it.

no comment necessary

True.

n54 wrote:

as to your job... in your profile you've written "Molecular Biologist", would you like to revise it? or are you simply a troll?

No thanks, I have been pursuing molecular biology as a profession for quite some time and I don't feel like enduring the retraining necessary to do something else. I read a lot of scientific literature, it's an absolutely necessary part of the job, I go to seminars a lot, also necessary, I listen to people try to explain the part of the universe they are researching. If they say something wrong, if they try to shortcut the accepted methods of research then I do my damnedest to put a stop to it. If I see fraud then I am obliged to expose it, all of us in scientific circles are. At the same time I try to conduct my research as honestly as possible, which means questioning everything I do every step of the way. It's a living, and I find that - on the whole - it's a stimulating way of earning a crust. Thanks for asking. Am I a troll? Let me check ... no.

n54 wrote:

Dr_Keith_H wrote:

2) Will you finally answer those questions I asked you in another thread not too long ago? You remember, the one about "ArmadilloAlert".

i'm sure your replies to this topic has already shown everybody else why and you should have the mental faculities to grasp it yourself as well. in case you're unfamiliar with the term trolling it exactly describes your current behaviour.

It's true that I have already formed an opinion about why you haven't answered the questions I asked you previously. I just wanted to see if you had merely missed them or forgot. Asking someone questions, prompted by their earlier statements, is not trolling.

Welcome to the SpaceflightCafe folks, if you read this far then you have truly come to the end of the line ...

TerraMrs was my user name on a sci-fi mmog which only let you have 8 characters for it, it's short for Terraform Mars, NOT earth mother .

EDIT: just want to add a quote i find relevant to this conversation, "Arguing on the internet is kind of like running in the special olympics- even if you win you're still retarded." arguing == flaming here, not debating. the first about 3 posts by you guys were debating, once you start repeating yourselves it becomes flaming.